Spell Lists Suck: Fiction-Focused Magic in D&D

I typically propose very minor alterations to D&D: how to fix summoning, how to fix shapechanging, how to fix weapon damage. I'm not really interested in redesigning the core system - just relatively simple fixes to pain points I've experienced in play. This time, I'm proposing something a little more drastic.

Spell lists suck. The way that spellcasters pick and choose the spells they learn and prepare is dumb.

Now that I've stated my thesis, I will walk it back slightly by saying spell lists are okay. Every spellcasting class has its own spell list that the player chooses from when deciding what spells their character learns or prepares each day. The unique spell lists for each spellcaster do a nice job differentiating the classes. Spellcasters either use "magic magic", "holy magic", or "nature magic", and two classes that use the same type are further differentiated by the specific spells available to them - warlocks have "creepy" spells compared to wizards, and paladins have more "battle magic" compared to clerics.

The existence of spell lists also allows for them to be subverted. Bards can, at certain levels, learn spells from any class's list. Clerics, druids, paladins, rangers, sorcerers, and warlocks get access to a handful of thematic bonus spells to pad out their lists. For some reason, druids, rangers, and sorcerers don't always get these bonus spells, warlocks don't automatically learn them but instead can choose to learn them, despite every other class getting them for free, and some classes draw their thematic spells from other class's spell lists while others get free access to spells they could have had anyway...but this is a tangent.

I say spell lists suck because every class gets their spells the same way: by picking the "good" ones off a big list. There are minor differences in that clerics, druids, and paladins get all of their spells at each level at once and prepare a limited number each day, while bards, rangers, sorcerers, and warlocks learn a limited number and always have them prepared. But the process by which clerics, druids, and paladins - or bards, rangers, sorcerers, and warlocks - actually choose their spells is exactly the same from one class to the other.

The flavor text for the classes suggests that each is either channeling a different type of magic or else channeling the same type of magic in a different way (wizards memorize and recite arcane formula, sorcerers draw on their innate power, and warlocks use magic gifted to them by otherworldly patrons), but this isn't reflected at all in how the caster acquires the actual spells they can cast.

The cleric might acquire a couple spells which are thematic to their god, but they are otherwise preparing the same spells as any other cleric. The sorcerer doesn't unlock some new power specific to their unique origin - they just learn the next most optimal generic sorcerer spell. The warlock does not commune and negotiate with their patron for enhanced powers - they just get another warlock spell, most of which are available to all warlocks.

No class is acquiring spells in a way that's at all related to the fiction, and because everyone is just picking spells off their own little menu, the classes are distinct from one another, but multiple characters within a single class are often not.

The exception is the wizard, who we're told learns magic by reading spellbooks and scrolls, which is actually how they learn magic in the game...sometimes. Because the designers feel they can't trust the DM to include spellbooks and scrolls in their game, wizards also just arbitrarily learn spells each time they level up. Like everyone else.

If I were to redesign the spellcasting system in a drastic way, I would design fiction-focused rules for how each spellcasting class acquires their spells. What would that look like?

Wizards

It is a myth that wizards can only master "arcane" magic. All magic is arcane - even if the druids and the gods would like the world to believe otherwise.

In truth, wizards can learn any magic that is written down. The magic of the gods is written in prayer books and inscribed on altars and in reliquaries. The magic of nature is etched into ancient standing stones and trees. None of these are beyond the wizard's comprehension.

The process of learning a spell remains unchanged from the base rules - the wizard must spend a certain amount of time and money (representing the purchasing of magically primed rare inks and parchment), then succeed on an Intelligence (Arcana) check, the DC equaling 10 + the spell's level, in order to write the magic in their spellbook.

As in the base rules, the wizard begins their career with a spellbook containing six 1st-level spells. These spells are usually taught to them by their master, but could also be acquired and learned by chance. The DM chooses which spells they are. To encourage the wizard to adventure and discover new magic, their master should probably be dead or estranged. The adventurer wizard can always find a new master through politicking or networking.

I feel very strongly that the DM should choose the new wizard's starting spells, but I'm sure there are many who find this unconscionable. The DM and player could also negotiate what the the six spells are. Or, to simplify things, perhaps all novice wizards learn the same six spells: comprehend languages, detect magic, mage armor, magic missile, shield, and sleep. A bit dull, but classic, and not at all useless.

Other subclasses which cast wizard spells (such as the arcane trickster and eldritch knight) also have spellbooks, and learn spells in the exact same manner as the wizard. Since this is a choice which is made later in the character's career, it's best for the player to declare their intention to take this option sooner rather than later, so that the DM can plan to include a spellbook which the character can acquire. Otherwise, a character who pursues this path does not have any spells until they can acquire a suitable spellbook (another wizard in the party can help them create one, or perhaps basic primers are sold in metropolitan markets).

One of the small things that bothers me about arcane tricksters and eldritch knights is that they learn the same magic as wizards but in an entirely different way. If wizards learn from books and can learn as many spells as they can find, other classes that cast wizard spells should do the same!

Clerics

Clerics do not learn spells - they are granted spells through faith and prayer. The deity and its intermediaries provide access to the magic. This is represented by a generic cleric spell list which is then supplemented with a selection of always-ready subclass-specific spells. This is fine, but it still results in largely similar clerics with just a few unique signature spells. Why is 90% of each god's repertoire the same spell list as every other god?

In AD&D, cleric spells like bless, cure wounds, and remove curse were reversible, and the reverse versions were the purview of evil clerics only. 2e sorted cleric spells into spheres of influence and introduced specialty priests (the druid being used as an example) which had their own unique powers as well as access to specific spheres. These two elements gave distinction to good and evil clerics as well as clerics of specific deities.

Each of 5e's Divine Domains should have a unique spell list, accessible only by worshiping a god who rules over that domain. This domains akin to 2e's spheres of influence. I wouldn't only split all of the current cleric spells into these domains, but would instead go through all of the spells in the game to determine which domains (if any) each might fit into.

There would also be a general domain for the most essential cleric spells like bless. These I would divide into good and evil domains. Want to cast cure wounds? Worship a good deity. Want to cast inflict wounds? Worship an evil deity.

This is probably a great time to mention that these are broad ideas. I'm taking big hypothetical swings here. A lot of these ideas might be kind of impractical, but things that I want to toy around with on a very small scale eventually (like, if a player in my game wanted to be a Life cleric, I might create a custom Life Domain spell list for them instead of creating spell lists for every domain).

From there, clerics could remain much the same, simply choosing their domain depending on their deity, except they would have access to a specific spell list based on that choice. A single god could grant access to multiple domains at once, or a cleric may have to choose which aspect of the god they worship - i.e., the destructive firepower of the god-phoenix, or the healing power symbolized by its rebirth?

It's worth nothing that D&D is typically a polytheistic setting. I don't see why a single cleric couldn't simultaneously petition multiple deities, so long as they aren't opposed to one another. A piety system such as that in Mythic Odysseys of Theros could be used to determine what level of magic from each deity the cleric has access to, depending on their in-game actions, allowing a cleric to essentially "multiclass" with a variety of gods to gain access to a breadth of magic which rivals the wizard.

Druid

Druid spellcasting in most editions of D&D works exactly the same as for clerics, albeit with different spells. If we're making a spell list for each cleric domain, one could simply give them access to the Nature Domain spell list and call it a day, but that would be a disservice. 

My understanding of druids is not that they are just clerics for gods of nature, but instead that they are channelers of D&D's ubiquitous "background magic" associated with "nature spirits". The druid is not praying to the nature god to cast earth magic, but channeling the powers of the local earth spirits.

Because druids channel the magic of the natural spirits in their environment to cast spells, just as clerics need a unique spell list for each Divine Domain, druids need a unique spell list for each natural environment - grassland, forest, hills, desert, swamp, water, mountain, underdark, etc. Like clerics, they would also have a more general list to include things which aren't environment-specific like animal spells, healing, and the like.

Can druids cast spells in unnatural environments like settlements and dungeons? Those places still have natural elements, so I don't see why not. A mining town is still in the hills, a mummy's tomb is still in the desert, and a merfolk stronghold is still underwater, after all.

In some cases, environmental elements need to be woven into the components of the druid's individual spells. That is, casting entangle requires the presence of plant life, and call lightning requires the druid to be outdoors during a storm, which could preclude the use of those spells in certain environments.

Should druids still be required to prepare spells? If they are channeling the natural spirits of their current environment, that sounds like spontaneous casting. Spellcasters who prepare their spells do so at the beginning of the day. In the morning the druid could be in the forest, but by afternoon they might be in the swamp. Should they be able to carry forest magic into the swamp with them?

Maybe they should. There is something interesting about a high-level druid who flies quickly to the desert, communes with it, and then flies quickly to the dark wood to use the desert's withering spells against the corrupted plant monsters there. It has Pokémon vibes (complimentary). Much to think about.

Paladin and Ranger

I'll skip to these two as they are straightforward. My solution for the two of them is simple: paladin spellcasting works the same as for clerics, and ranger spellcasting works the same as for druids.

In older editions, paladins and rangers were akin to variants of the fighter with higher ability score requirements and some special thematic powers. They weren't even spellcasters until much later in their career (in 2e, 9th-level for paladins and 8th-level for rangers), and their spellcasting abilities were quite weak at that time.

I won't advocate for returning to that style of doing things. The "half-caster" spell progression of 5e works just fine (at most, I'd consider making them a "one-third-caster" like the eldritch knight or arcane trickster). 

The point is that paladins are warriors who cast cleric spells, and rangers are warriors who cast druid spells. They don't need their own spell list or unique mechanics. They will benefit from the versatility that comes from the broader cleric and druid lists.

The elephant in the room is that this requires paladins to go back to worshipping gods. I like that in 5e, paladins draw their power from the magic of the oath they swear. It's very thematic, and it implies a setting where oaths carry cosmic weight. However, I have no idea how to make it fiction-focused with regards to what spells they can cast or how their magic works.

So, paladins have to worship gods again, which is fine by me. Like clerics, their spell list is determined by their deity's domain of influence. They should still have an oath with principles they must adhere to, but the oath is sworn between them and their deity, and the deity provides the magic so long as the paladin continues to abide. The chosen deity informs which oaths are available.

Bard

In 5e, the bard learns a set number of spells and casts them spontaneously. Their spell list is mostly arcane magic, but is also a weird grab bag of divine and nature magic. Their Magical Secrets feature allows them to pilfer spells from other class's spell lists. There's some flavor text about how the bard utilizes the "Words of Creation", which are learned from "hard study" and "natural talent", but of course this isn't actually reflected in how they learn their spells.

My bard is instead inspired by the bards of editions past.

The AD&D 1e bard is famously weird. It is essentially the first "prestige class" - part fighter, part thief, and part druid.

In 2e, the bard is largely similar, except the druid spells are replaced with wizard spells. Bards in 2e keep a spellbook.

To split the difference, the fiction-focused bard uses both the wizard's and druid's rules for spellcasting simultaneously. They have a spellbook and can learn any spell that's written down, and they can also channel the magic of nature spirits and cast druid spells spontaneously. It's up to the player to choose which slots to spend on which spells.

This preserves the main element which makes bards' spellcasting unique - the hodgepodge of spells they get from different types of casters. It also fully embraces two very different interpretations of the bard of which I'm equally fond.

Sorcerer and Warlock

I'm lumping these together because the post is getting long, I don't have a lot to say about them, and the systems I have in mind for them are very similar.

In 5e, both sorcerers and warlocks learn spells as they level up and can cast them spontaneously. Some sorcerer subclasses get bonus spells that they learn automatically. Every warlock subclass gets an expanded spell list, but they don't learn the spells automatically. They have to pick them as the spells they learn when they gain levels.

Fiction-focused sorcerers have a unique spell list determined by their Sorcerous Origin, and fiction-focused warlocks have a unique spell list determined by their Otherworldly Patron. Not every sorcerer regardless of their magical origin can cast control winds. Not every warlock patron has the power to grant their petitioners finger of death. 

This makes sorcerers and warlocks the most tightly-focused casters in the game, which they should be. It doesn't make sense to me that anyone with a magical soul/anyone who makes a pact with an otherworldly entity can cast from almost exactly the same list of spells.

Conclusion

So, that is a pretty crazy system I'm proposing. The 5e PHB has eight spell lists (one for each spellcasting class). If I were to follow my own advice and make all of the specific spell lists I'm proposing - only counting classes and subclasses in the PHB - I would end up with 20 unique spell lists (seven for the cleric domains, eight for each type of natural environment, two for the sorcerer subclasses, and three for the warlock subclasses - the bard, paladin, ranger, and wizard don't need their own lists).

It is incredibly obvious why the 5e design team did not do this. The unique spell list for each class plus signature spells for things like Divine Domain, Druid Circle, Sacred Oath, and the like is an elegant solution. 

But, I just can't shake the feeling that spellcasters who use different types of magic should feel different beyond just the flavor of their spells and what kind of armor they can wear. Clerics, druids, and paladins, bards, rangers, sorcerers, and warlocks should not be learning and using magic exactly the same way as one another.

Mostly, I want the spells that casters can access to make sense in the fiction. If the wizard is supposed to learn spells by finding them in dungeons while adventuring, they should not be stumbling upon 9th-level spells in the spellbook their master gifted them as an apprentice. Not all gods should grant access to the same magic. A druid who draws magic from the environment should not be casting the same spells in the desert as in the forest. A sorcerer or warlock with a very specific magical power source shouldn't have the same spell selection as every other sorcerer or warlock.

Well, it's easy enough for me to argue in favor of doing all this extra work without putting my money where my mouth is, so I totally understand if this sounds like a bonkers idea to anyone else. It sounds pretty bonkers to me. But in a kinda cool way.

On Shapechanging

If one goes looking for what are commonly considered to be the "problem" spells in 5th edition Dungeons & Dragons, there are some usual suspects which always come up - guidance, find familiar (and summoning in general), healing word, augury (and other divinations), healing spirit, counterspell, tiny hut, simulacrum (and all illusions), wish, and so, so many more. Hyper-online D&D players love to complain about magic in D&D.

I see problems with these spells and others, and have had my share of trouble with magic in D&D, but none of them has ever bothered me quite so much as polymorph, its related spells, and shapechanging magic in general, like the druid's Wild Shape ability.

On Challenge Rating

Polymorph (Player's Handbook, page 266) allows the caster to transform a creature for up to an hour into any beast whose challenge rating is equal to or less than the target. This changes the target's game statistics (including mental ability scores, but not alignment and personality) to that of the beast. 

True polymorph (page 283) uses the same CR = level approach as polymorph, but the new creature doesn't need to be a beast, and the change lasts until dispelled if the caster concentrates on the spell for the full hour. 

Shapechange (page 274) again uses the CR = level approach, but it only affects the caster, the new form needn't be a beast, the caster retains their mental ability scores and skill and saving throw proficiencies, and for the duration the caster can use an action to change shape again.

My problem with this is that the Monster Manual states "An appropriately equipped and well-rested party of four adventurers should be able to defeat a monster that has a challenge rating equal to its level without suffering any deaths" (page 9). In other words, a CR 7 creature is meant to be a challenge for a party of four appropriately equipped and well-rested 7th-level characters.

So...if a CR 7 creature is roughly equivalent to four 7th-level characters, why can a 7th-level character transform into a CR 7 creature, which in and of itself should be a fitting challenge for the entire party? Why does the Monster Manual tell the DM, when building encounters, to equate a CR 7 creature to an entire 7th-level party, but for the sake of this spell and those like it, equate a CR 7 creature with a single 7th-level character?

Mass polymorph (Xanathar's Guide to Everything, page 160) is a bit different - it affects up to 10 creatures, and just like polymorph, the new forms can be beasts only. However, the new form's CR must be equal to or less than half the target's level. I imagine that this caveat is there because it affects more than one creature, but I'm going to interpret it as recognition that an Xth-level character is not equivalent to a CR X monster.

Wild Shape (PHB, page 64) recognizes this too. A 2nd- or 3rd-level druid can Wild Shape into a CR 1/4 beast (i.e., not a CR 2 or 3 beast). A 4th-, 5th-, 6th-, or 7th-level druid can Wild Shape into a CR 1/2 beast. At 8th-level and beyond, they can Wild Shape into a CR 1 beast. The Circle of the Moon druid (page 69) can do a bit better, but even at the height of their powers, they can Wild Shape into a CR 6 beast (at 18th-level) or a CR 10 elemental (at 10th-level, expending two uses of Wild Shape in doing so).

Why is it that a 7th-level bard, sorcerer, or wizard gets access to a spell which immediately allows them to change into a more powerful creature than is allowed by the shapechanging class ability of the shapechangey-est subclass of the game's shapechanging class? (Yes, druids do get access to polymorph too, but that's not the point I'm making.)

Similar to how mass polymorph affects multiple creatures, one could argue that the limitation on Wild Shape is there because the druid can use that ability relatively often (twice per short rest), whereas another spellcaster's spell slots (used to cast polymorph) only return on a long rest. Yet, considering a spellcaster can get up to three 4th-level spell slots per day with which to polymorph - plus more, if they choose to use higher-level slots to do so - this doesn't seem right either.

As an aside, this makes me wish that the Monster Manual or Dungeon Master's Guide included a table which roughly matched characters of a given level to monsters of a given CR, i.e., a CR 1 monster is roughly equivalent to a 3rd-level character - something like that. It would make so many things easier - not just this specific issue, but also encounter balancing (when I feel the need to do that), and designing player characters as monsters and vice versa. 

Want to stat up a 20th-level cleric as a PC and convert them to a monster/nonplayer character? Here's what CR they should be. Want to give a red dragon wyrmling sorcerer levels? Well, a CR 4 creature is roughly equivalent to a 6th-level character, so they can have 6 levels of sorcerer (granted, this would effectively change the CR, but let's be honest - those monsters need some beefing up).

Xanathar's Guide to Everything has something similar in Chapter 2: Dungeon Master's Tools, under Encounter Building (page 88), which gives guidelines for how many creatures of a given CR to use in an encounter against a number of characters of a given level, but these tables also make the laughable claim that a 20th-level character is roughly equivalent to a CR 7, 8, 9, or 10 monster, so I don't really trust that math.

On Hit Points

Perhaps the more problematic element of polymorph is this: "The target assumes the hit points of its new form. When it reverts to its normal form, the creature returns to the number of hit points it had before it transformed." All of the aforementioned shapechanging spells work this way, save for mass polymorph, which does the same thing but with temporary hit points for whatever reason (precluding the affected creatures from benefiting from additional sources of temp HP or from healing), and shapechange, which specifies that when the target changes their form additional times, they don't assume the hit points of their new form if it has more hit points than their last form.

So the sorcerer twins a polymorph spell to target the 8th-level barbarian and fighter, turning them both into tyrannosaurus rexes (D&D is a silly game, which is a good thing). They stomp into combat against the dragon, take 136 points of damage each, then revert to their humanoid forms and...still have their full 100 hit points or whatever from before they were changed.

I thought this was shapechanging magic - I didn't realize the spell encases the target in a t-rex-shaped shell which wards them against harm until the enemy does enough damage to break them out of it. The way I understand it, the target's body is transformed - the t-rex form is still their body. It's body takes damage, the target's body takes damage.

"Well, the target's armor class is usually worse when they transform into a beast, so if they're easier to hit and still take damage as normal then the spell just sucks!" one might say, to which I would say, "No it doesn't!"

The benefit of polymorph and its ilk is that the target can assume myriad forms to suit any situation. With the use of one spell or class feature the affected creature can climb, burrow, fly, swim, become faster, stronger, better able to concentrate on spells, gain new proficiencies, heightened senses, and - with more powerful magic like shapechange, true polymorph, and Elemental Wild Shape - squeeze through cracks as narrow as an inch wide, gain immunities and resistances, cast spells, unlock a new suite of supernatural actions, speak new languages, wield a flame whip and lightning sword (assuming your new form gets the typical equipment included in its statblock, which - don't get me started), and even with all that, they retain their alignment and personality.

So yeah, the tradeoff should be that the target's body is their body and their hit points are their hit points.

Changing Shapechanging

I like that in D&D a creature can change into a dragon or a beholder or a giant or whatever. I really do. It's an awesome ability, but, I also get tired of the t-rex polymorph meta. Shapechanging magic is immensely powerful without having game-changing combat utility. In my most recent 5e game, the warlock spent levels 17 to 18 as a death knight and level 19 as a balor. 

It was really cool when they first did it, but for three whole levels in the last tier of the game, they weren't even playing a warlock anymore, because it was just so much better to transform into an "equivalent" monster. If they really wanted to, they could have permanently transformed the whole party into balors (again, pretty cool, but it feels wrong somehow - they also would have stomped every encounter for the rest of the campaign, easily).

So, I'm done with polymorph as written. My house rule for shapechanging mechanics is presented below:

When a creature changes shape (such as with the polymorph spell), a player character can change shape into a creature whose CR equals (at most) half the character’s level (rounded down), unless the feature specifies that the character can only change shape into a creature with a lower CR (i.e. the Wild Shape class feature). When a creature’s new form is reduced to 0 hit points, it reverts to its normal form. Any hit points lost during the transformation are subtracted from the character’s current hit points.

For example, a 20th level wizard with 142 hit points uses polymorph to transform into a CR 8 tyrannosaurus rex with 136 hit points. The wizard’s tyrannosaurus rex form is reduced to 0 hit points, and the wizard resumes their normal form. The wizard now has 6 hit points (142 - 136 = 6).

Shapechanging abilities grant you only the physical traits of the new form. You always retain your Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma scores when you change shape, along with any saving throw or skill proficiencies associated with those scores. You do not gain access to any abilities, actions, proficiencies, or spells which the new form has if those features use Intelligence, Wisdom, or Charisma.

Side Note: I have a second house rule for Circle of the Moon druids which grants them 4 temporary hit points per druid level when they Wild Shape (based on the Circle of Spores's Symbiotic Entity feature - Tasha's Cauldron of Everything, page 36), so that Wild Shape maintains some combat utility for them in light of this change. I would also rule that the limitation on CR doesn't affect Elemental Wild Shape, since that feature specifies that you can transform into a more powerful creature than would otherwise be allowed, and specific rules trump general rules in 5e.

System Shock

When I first decided to change shapechanging in my games, I first looked back at Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition, it being my "older edition" reference point. It was definitely still a mess back then, including a complicated and poorly laid out system for polymorphing creatures and objects, for which the duration changes depending on the difference between the kingdom, class, "relationship", size, shape, and intelligence of the creature or object and what it is being turned into (2e PHB, page 242). For example a lion can be polymorphed into a sphinx permanently - because a sphinx is like a lion - but a turnip can only be polymorphed into a purple worm for a few hours - because a turnip is not at all like a purple worm. That is the extent of the guidance given.

2e also has cool ideas like polymorphing a creature into a rock and grinding the rock into dust to kill them, but if one polymorphed the creature directly into dust they'd have to "scatter the dust far and wide" in order to effectively kill the creature. I have no idea how I would apply this to 5e, but it is inspiring.

2e also includes system shock (2e PHB, page 21), which is a percentage chance - based on a character's Constitution - to survive body-altering effects like polymorph, petrification, and magical aging. On a failed system shock roll, the change is so devastating to the creature that it dies instantly. The check is made when the creature changes shape and when it reverts to it original form (page 205). Notably, it doesn't apply to the polymorph self spell, so I think the check is only required if the change is done to an unwilling creature.

If I were to introduce system shock to 5e, I'd probably do it as such:

Whenever a creature is unwillingly subjected to a magical effect which reshapes or ages its body (petrification and reversing petrification, shapechanging, magical aging, etc.), that creature may be instantly killed by the shock to its body and mind. The creature must make a DC 10 Constitution saving throw or instantly die.

I wouldn't necessarily encourage this, as it only enhances polymorph's ability to be a pseudo-death spell, which it already is in 5e, if Rules-As-Written white room theory-crafters are to be given credence. Basically, the caster transforms the enemy into a vulnerable creature like a sheep and then surrounds the target with their allies, readying to attack all at once so that the entire party's focused damage is applied simultaneously, before the creature reverts to its original form. 

This is incredibly cheesy and I would never allow it (the first hit to drop the target to 0 hit points would cause it to revert to its original form, in my opinion - roll initiative to see who strikes first), but I thought I should address it in case Redditors decide to nickel and dime me on this point.

Interestingly, polymorph self in 2nd edition (PHB, page 206) only allows the affected creature to benefit from the new form's movement and breathing abilities. However, they can change shape as often as they please while the spell lasts, similar to 5e's shapechange. This was my inspiration for making it so that shapechanging in 5e only grants you the creature's physical capabilities, not mental ones.

Retaining Personality

I always love to make it a point whenever polymorph comes up in my 5e games that the affected creature retains its alignment and personality. "Don't worry, friends - you can tell that the tyrannosaurus rex is me, your loyal ally, because it has my personality and mannerisms."

Don't worry, this is actually the party's barbarian!

2e has another interesting mechanic by which a polymorphed creature might assume the personality of (and believe itself to truly be) the creature it's polymorphed into (PHB, page 205). A percentage chance is calculated based on the difference in Intelligence and hit dice between forms. The polymorphed creature must roll against this percentage each day it's polymorphed, and on a failure, it effectively becomes the new creature and comes under the control of the DM until recovered by a wish spell or similar magic. This total transformation includes the acquisition of all the new creature's magical and special abilities (like a dragon's innate spellcasting and breath weapon). Furthermore, those who are reverted to their original form after this transformation has occurred maintain the belief that they are actually the polymorphed creature and attempt to return to that form.

Again, this doesn't apply to the polymorph self spell, so it might apply to unwilling creatures only. However, polymorph any object (2e's version of true polymorph - PHB, page 242) does state "The system shock roll must be applied to living creatures, as must the restrictions noted regarding the polymorph other and stone to flesh spells." Which restrictions are we referring to?

Stone to flesh (2e PHB, page 230) has some language about the cubic volume of flesh and stone that can be converted (with a delightful mental image of a wizard creating a tunnel of flesh through a solid stone wall), as well as some language about broken or weathered petrified individuals retaining their damage and deformities when unpetrified, so either or both of these might be the aforementioned "restrictions".

The "restrictions noted regarding the polymorph other...spell" might then be the note about retaining personality when polymorphed. This is how I choose to read it, as although the target of the polymorph any object spell could be willing or unwilling (and previous examples suggest that only unwilling targets are at risk of losing their personality), it makes perfect sense that a creature which spends days, months, or years polymorphed into a demon might be at risk of believing themselves to actually be a demon.

A scientist (AKA modern day wizard) who turns themselves into a fly may be at risk of believing themselves to truly be the Brundlefly.

This becomes a potential solution to the true polymorph problem, wherein a 17th-level character expends one 9th-level spell slot one time and proceeds to spend the rest of their adventuring days in the form of a death knight or balor with no risk of consequence. If I were to use such a mechanic in 5e, I'd do it like so: 

Whenever a creature is subjected to a magical effect which reshapes its body into that of another creature, there is a chance that the creature assumes the alignment, personality, and mental ability scores of its new form. 

At dawn each day after the creature is first transformed, the creature must make a Charisma saving throw. The DC equals 10 plus the difference in Charisma between forms (if the new form's Charisma score is higher) or minus the difference in Charisma between forms (if the new form's Charisma score is lower), plus the difference in levels or CR (if the new form's level or CR is higher) or minus the difference in levels or CR (if the new form's level or CR is lower). 

On a failed saving throw, the creature assumes the alignment, personality, Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma scores of the new form, gains all associated abilities and proficiencies, and comes under the control of the DM. The transformation can be reverted as normal, but changes to alignment, personality, mental ability scores, associated abilities and proficiencies, and control of the creature by the DM can be reverted only by way of a greater restoration or wish spell, or similar magic. Until that time, the creature believes itself to be its new true form and attempts to return to that form.

I'm using Charisma instead of Intelligence here, because Charisma in 5e is a creature's "force of personality" (PHB, page 173), and this is a contest of personality/sense of self. I'm tempted to leave it as Intelligence, because Intelligence needs all the help it can get in 5e, but Charisma feels like the "right" ability score to use. 

I'm using CR instead of hit dice because CR is the measure of a monster's power in 5e, whereas the same can be said of hit dice in 2e.

Again, I like that shapechanging magic can accomplish such goofy and cool effects. PCs should be able to transform into powerful monsters at a certain point in the game, but the conversion rates are whacky, transforming into a t-rex every combat is boring after the first time, and one shouldn't be able to live out their days as a dragon without risk of consequence. 

Shapechanging magic is extremely versatile without being the dominant meta-strategy in combat during the later tiers of gameplay. I like its combat potential reined in, its mechanics more sensible, and its drawbacks more nuanced - or rather, in 5e, I'd like it to have any drawbacks at all!

On Specialists

I love wizards. It used to be that when I made a character for a Dungeons & Dragons game, I waited to see what everyone else was playing first, and picked a class which met some unfulfilled role in the party. Because, until recently, there was only one Intelligence-based class in 5th edition, this usually meant I'd be playing a wizard.

One thing I've never liked about 5e wizards (and a lot of 5e's spellcasters in general) is how same-y they all feel. Gone are the days when the Dungeon Master picked which spells the wizard had in their spellbook. Players now have total freedom over their spell selection. The scope of the game has narrowed at many tables to be primarily about combat - some might argue it's always been that way, but early dungeon-centric campaigns like Castle Greyhawk seem to have been at least equally about exploration. There is a proliferation of content on YouTube which concerns itself primarily with ranking the "best" spells, which means experienced players who want to optimize their characters tend to pick the same "must-have" spells every time - mage armor, magic missile, shield, misty step, counterspell, fireball, etc. 

(As an aside, this is why I like playing with new players, and try not to steer them towards the "good" spells unless they ask for my advice - they haven't yet closed themselves off to the possibilities of less "optimal" spells, and it's often a delight to watch them find ways to use those spells.)

Certain subclass abilities incentivize picking spells from an Arcane Tradition's school (Arcane Ward is recharged by casting abjurations, diviners can regain spell slots from casting certain divinations, Sculpt Spells only works with evocations, etc.), but even the Savant feature that each specialist gets only incentivizes learning spells from one's specialized school of magic outside of the leveling system (the feature reduces the gold cost of scribing spells, so a specialist wizard is better off learning other spells on level up and then getting the ones they want from their specialized school by other means).

All wizards tend to have the same spells, aside from those oddballs picked up from spell scrolls in treasure hoards and from enemy wizards' spellbooks. An abjurer's Arcane Ward might make them play slightly differently than a diviner with their Portent or an evoker with Sculpt Spells, but by and large, they're all probably going to have very similar repertoires.

Specializing Specialists

Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition did specialist wizards differently. Specialists gained additional spells per level from their chosen school, received a bonus to saving throws against spells of their own school, imposed a saving throw penalty on their enemies when they cast spells of that school, had an improved chance to learn spells of their school, and could more easily create new spells within their school. The trade-off was that each school had a school of opposition, from which the specialist was forbidden to learn spells.

Later editions did away with this aspect of specialists along with most other restrictions on player character choice, and wizards became meta-chasing casters like everyone else, casting whatever spells D&D YouTubers told them were most optimal, albeit with a few bells and whistles of varying usefulness.

In my 5e games, I offer a house rule for wizards who choose the abjuration, conjuration, divination, enchantment, evocation, illusion, necromancy, or transmutation Arcane Traditions:

Starting at 2nd level, whenever you gain a wizard level, you can add one wizard spell to your spellbook, in addition to the two you already learn (as described in Spellcasting). This additional spell must be of the school associated with your Arcane Tradition. Additionally, when you make a saving throw against a spell of the school associated with your Arcane Tradition, you have proficiency on that saving throw attempt, even if you normally lack proficiency. When you cast a spell of the school associated with your Arcane Tradition which forces a saving throw to resist its effects, you can give one target of the spell disadvantage on its first saving throw made against the spell.

Additionally, you have advantage on Intelligence (Arcana) checks to learn spells from your Arcane Tradition’s school from spell scrolls.

It's a small bonus, but I think that it, along with the subclass features already included in each Arcane Tradition, gently nudges wizard players towards leaning into their specialization, if they have one.

Side Note: I also imported a spell research downtime activity based on 2e's system, which benefits specialists who choose to create new spells within their school of magic, but that is probably beyond the scope of this post.

Schools of Opposition

Another way to..."encourage" a player to lean into their wizard archetype is to reintroduce schools of opposition - that is, schools of magic from which a specialist cannot learn any spells. This is not something that fits nicely with new school playstyles, and more experienced players who are familiar with "must-pick" spells and the "meta" of wizards may chafe at the restriction. It may be worthwhile to offer the aforementioned house rule as an optional bonus if the player opts-in to locking themselves out of opposition schools. If that isn't to their liking, the DM can just leave specialist wizards as they are.

The schools of opposition are as follows:

• Abjuration: Illusion and Transmutation
• Conjuration: Divination and Evocation
• Divination: Conjuration
• Enchantment: Evocation and Necromancy
• Evocation: Conjuration and Enchantment
• Illusion: Abjuration, Evocation, and Necromancy
• Necromancy: Enchantment and Illusion
• Transmutation: Abjuration and Necromancy

I'll admit there's not much rhyme or reason to this aside from being how it was done in 2e, but one can derive some meaning from it: Wizards schooled in the more subtle arts of enchantment and illusion don't have the skill or inclination to invest time and gold into learning crude battle magic like abjuration and evocation, or the dark arts of necromancy - why reanimate a corpse when you can trick the living into doing what you want? Inversely, necromancers are much too isolated in their gross crypt laboratories to learn magic that relies on understanding people - and why would a wizard preoccupied with the undead choose to learn spells which largely don't affect them? Summoned creatures get in the way of evoker's blasting magic, and they'd rather blow someone up than charm them. Diviners know too much about the nature of the multiverse to start conjuring creatures from who-knows-where. Conjurers use refined, artisanal magic to create more sophisticated effects than the instantaneous blasts of evocation, and they have no need for divination, as they can simply acquire information from the extraplanar creatures they summon, or traverse the planes and find knowledge for themselves.

When one looks at the schools of magic and which spells belong to which school, it becomes apparent how blurry the lines are - why is necromancy, the magic of life and death, not responsible for curative magic? Why is fear, a spell which triggers an emotional state in its targets, an illusion and not an enchantment? 

I think of this as a feature of D&D's magic system, not a bug. The schools are not indicative of what kind of magic is possible within each school, but rather the approach used to achieve the magic's effects. Necromancy is not responsible for healing magic because it primarily deals in "dark" magic. Fear is an illusion because it works like that scene in Fellowship of the Ring where Gandalf makes himself appear very big in order to scare Bilbo back to his senses ("I am not trying to rob you! I'm trying to help you.").

When one thinks of magic this way, its various schools become almost like monastic traditions - wizards are disciplined in a certain approach to magic, and stand in opposition to incompatible disciplines. An illusionist might see a necromancer as an affront to magic itself. The two might engage in battle whenever they meet, and their approaches would look very different - the illusionist may use their magic to confuse and misdirect the necromancer's simple-minded minions, then shatter the rival wizard's mind with powerful fear effects, or the necromancer might come prepared with undead specifically created to see through such magic, forcing the illusionist to resort to trickery and obfuscation to escape the enemy's minions. They're not both going to stand 120 feet apart slinging fire bolt and blocking with shield.

I don't care much for D&D YouTube - content there is often preoccupied with player character builds, ranking character options into tier lists based on their "power" in a featureless white room combat, or trying to be "funny" ("This is what it would be like if Skyrim players played D&D!"). One of the only channels I really enjoy is WebDM, and they have a great series on the schools of magic in D&D, which is a good place to start thinking about these things.

Other Specialists

It isn't just wizards who need to work within the confines of their discipline in 2e. Priests' spells were broken into spheres, with each deity granting and barring access to specific spheres, while druids were simply priests of natural spirits and old gods, with access to spheres that suited their style of worship.

There's a world in which every Divine Domain, Druid Circle, Sorcerous Origin, Otherworldly Patron, and maybe even Sacred Oath and Ranger Conclave has its own, totally unique spell list. I like Domain, Circle, and Oath spells because they offer a happy middle ground, wherein spellcasters automatically have convenient access to the spells that fit their theme, but can still prepare the "optimal" spells they might prefer (although this usually means that the subclass-specific spells don't see much use unless they're particularly "good").

Even then, this method isn't applied consistently. Otherworldly Patron spells are added to the warlock spell list, but the warlock still has to choose them as known spells (foregoing potentially "better" vanilla warlock spells), and some rangers and sorcerers get bonus spells, but not all.

One solution to this is to give all Ranger Conclaves and Sorcerous Origins bonus spell lists (which I've done in my games). An option for warlocks would be to give them their Otherworldly Patron spells for free (which I've done as well). But how do you encourage players to actually use these spells over the "optimal" ones?

Like with wizards, some subclasses have moved towards solving this problem by granting certain benefits when casting subclass-specific spells (and others that fit with the theme) - Life domain clerics heal better, Circle of the Shepherd druids have more durable summons, Storm sorcerers can cause damage to enemies near them whenever they cast a lightning or thunder spell, etc.

I encourage players to lean in to the theme of their subclass's specialization. When I play an Aberrant Mind sorcerer, I'm only taking spells which can pass for psionic effects. When I play a Divine Soul sorcerer, I'm only taking cleric spells. When I play a Draconic sorcerer, I'm playing an elementalist. My Shadow sorcerers are necromancers. My Storm sorcerers only use weather magic, etc.

I find that the world feels much more rich when spellcasters of a given type use different approaches to magic and a different selection of spells. Each wizard, cleric, druid, or the like feels more unique and memorable. Ultimately, this is something players most likely have to decide they want for themselves. The DM can't force this kind of playstyle, but they can offer incentives for players who embrace it.